Bin Laden kill mission on RTE

karma_

Clareman wrote: »

People comparing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to what has happened recently is a bit of a joke imvho, you are not comparing like with like at all.

During World War 2, bombing of strategically important cities was widespread of both sides of the conflict, the German's were bombing London (and other cities), the British Dresden and others, it was common place for innocent people to get out of the cities as soon as possible. The Americans were also carrying out a long standing bombing raid on Japan for years, the reason the planes were able to get over the cities (in the middle of the day) was because the gunners were saving their bullets for the larger squadrons which were expected. The Americans had warned the Japanese of a swift and complete destruction of Japan if they didn't surrender by the end of July, this was ignored, the first bomb was dropped and the Japanese were warned again, which was ignored. Tha Americans had planned on waiting ~1 week before dropping a second bomb, but due to bad weather they brought it forward to just 3 days after the first bomb, it's often over looked as well that Nagasaki was the backup target for the the bombing, Kokura was covered in clouds. There also wasn't the same understanding of the utter devastation left behind by a nuclear bomb, they knew they were making someone immense, but the fallout and other side effects weren't fully understood, they also used 2 types of bomb and fuel (1 implosion the other involved shooting the plutonium into more fuel) and they weren't sure how they would work.

All of the bombing of cities indiscriminately is not acceptable, that one side eventually won the war does not make the action any more defensible.

The War was all but over, Japan had already offered terms of surrender but this was rejected because it was not unconditional. There was never any need for a land invasion, and a surrender could have been negotiated, however the Allies wanted to punish Japan and put the country on its knees.

What the apologists seem to forget in their excusing of this, and let's be honest, evil deed is that it opened up the nuclear Pandora's box. In a possible future conflict, how many cities must be wiped out to stop a war? Dublin? London, New York? You're placing your own head on the chopping block.They are literally saying that to destroy a City is fine, even in your own post you acknowledge the US was all but willing to destroy an entire country. This is unacceptable, it's against all ethical and moral consideration and should be opposed and condemned.

Riesen_Meal

kevin james murray wrote: »

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Anyone just see it.
Seems like they took a huge risk with the operation.

why do yanks keep crashing helecopters on these black op missions

Sounds like me playing Battlefield 3.... : (

Tigerandahalf

I was thinking the Black Hawk may have been shot down by anti-aircraft guns or something like that. However if that happened there would surely have been casualties among the SEALs which there wasnt. It is a bit strange. You would expect the compound would have some plan in place. Perhaps the Black Hawk was struck and came down. You can only speculate on what info has been released by the US. Im sure they have manipulated the events in some way. Whether Bin Laden would have wanted to be taken alive or not who knows. His health wasnt meant to be great and perhaps he didnt want to go to trial and spend the rest of his days behind bars. If he was losing power and influence within Al Qaeda which seems likely, then turning the gun on himself could have been attractive. However that would not have been good for his image so perhaps he would have been happy to make a last stand. Who knows. What seems likely is that he had become a very isolated figure with declining influence.

books4sale

end of the road wrote: »

no its not.


prove it.

prove it. their are many valid theories and a lot of valid research to prove otherwise. the american government would certainly be capible of killing their own people if they needed to.

how do you know? and its not (fact) as it can't be proven they exist or don't exist

maybe you should stop being gullible rather then telling people who believe alternative views to grow up? you don't sound to intelligent to be honest when you tell people to grow up for having a different view to yours. like i said, america have told so many lies and talked so much bull that its hard for anyone to believe anything they say, nothing they do would surprise a lot of people.

Theories my hole!

What age are you? 16? 20?

I hope your not married with kids as you need to cop on to yourself.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I have already spent a good 20 years of my life covering every part of this planet. I know more than most cause I was out there doing it long before the interent became a stop shop for every crazy yo-yo.

Go out and find the answers yourself ...when you grow up!

Run_to_da_hills

Seaneh wrote: »

Bin Laden has been dead for ****ing years.

There must have been one hell of a rotten smell in his compound by the time the navy seals raided. :pac:

Happyman42

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

They left a paraboplic reflector on the moon which you can fire a laser beam at and get a signal back.

Aha! That's how they knocked the towers!

Bradidup

Seaneh wrote: »

Bin Laden has been dead for ****ing years.

Bin Laden is a dead again muslim

flyswatter

This was on Channel 4 ages ago, they called it Bin Laden: Shoot to Kill or something like that, thoroughly enjoyed it myself at the time.

end of the road

books4sale wrote: »

What age are you? 16? 20?

99 <snip>

books4sale wrote: »

you need to cop on to yourself.

no i don't

books4sale wrote: »

I have already spent a good 20 years of my life covering every part of this planet. I know more than most

good for you, couldn't care a less about you, or what you did. no interest

books4sale wrote: »

I was out there doing it long before the interent became a stop shop for every crazy yo-yo.

you want a medal? and to be honest you sound like the exact crazy yo-yo your refering to.

books4sale wrote: »

when you grow up!

i've all ready grown up, you need to stop being gullible

donalg1

karma_ wrote: »

Atoned? Pearl Harbour was a military target, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian cities and their bombing was punitive barbarism and a certain war crime. There were even US POW's in Hiroshima when it was bombed.

Spectacularly missed the point there anyway same as lethal lady has missed the point the whole way along. She is claiming that the documentary should have mentioned the fact that the US killed thousands at Hiroshima, because they mentioned the fact Bin Laden was responsible for killing thousands on 9/11.

I simply stated that Hiroshima has no relevance to the documentary on the other night so there was absolutely no reason to mention it. She however seems to miss this point time and again. Even went as far as to say if the US want sympathy for 9/11 then they should atone for Hiroshima which is a complete load of nonsense.

I made reference to Pearl Harbor as an example, she obviously feels sympathy for those affected by the bombing of Hiroshima, so by her own reasoning figures Japan have atoned for Pearl Harbor, military target or not there is no excuse for killing thousands of people at any time.

Again the point is this, try not miss it now, the documentary was about Bin Laden, so why in the world would they talk about something that happened in World War II in a documentary about Osama Bin Laden.

donalg1

karma_ wrote: »

That makes it no more acceptable. Here we are, condemning, rightly so a cowardly terrorist attack in NY that killed about 3000 people, yet some are absolving the almost complete obliteration of TWO cities, packed with civilians. If one is to be condemned, then it is proper and just that both be condemned.

But only one has any relevance to this thread and to the documentary shown the other night.

karma_

donalg1 wrote: »

Spectacularly missed the point there anyway same as lethal lady has missed the point the whole way along. She is claiming that the documentary should have mentioned the fact that the US killed thousands at Hiroshima, because they mentioned the fact Bin Laden was responsible for killing thousands on 9/11.

I simply stated that Hiroshima has no relevance to the documentary on the other night so there was absolutely no reason to mention it. She however seems to miss this point time and again. Even went as far as to say if the US want sympathy for 9/11 then they should atone for Hiroshima which is a complete load of nonsense.

I made reference to Pearl Harbor as an example, she obviously feels sympathy for those affected by the bombing of Hiroshima, so by her own reasoning figures Japan have atoned for Pearl Harbor, military target or not there is no excuse for killing thousands of people at any time.

Again the point is this, try not miss it now, the documentary was about Bin Laden, so why in the world would they talk about something that happened in World War II in a documentary about Osama Bin Laden.

You keep thinking I missed your point buddy, it was your use of the word 'atoned' I had a problem with, as illustrated at the very beginning of my post. See that question mark?

That was a stupid word to use in that context.

donalg1

karma_ wrote: »

You keep thinking I missed your point buddy, it was your use of the word 'atoned' I had a problem with, as illustrated at the very beginning of my post. See that question mark?

That was a stupid word to use in that context.

Really is that so, well "buddy", that was used in response to Lethal Lady who first used the word, so I think you are the one again misreading things, maybe you need to go and have a read of it and respond to her and not me. Ok "buddy". :rolleyes: My whole point was it was a stupid word to use, which you missed that spectacularly too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80495486&postcount=137

karma_

donalg1 wrote: »

Really is that so, well "buddy", that was used in response to Lethal Lady who first used the word, so I think you are the one again misreading things, maybe you need to go and have a read of it and respond to her and not me. Ok "buddy". :rolleyes: My whole point was it was a stupid word to use, which you missed that spectacularly too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80495486&postcount=137

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k46/ryow2437/UNSLOM.jpg

refusetolose

The Pentagon considering taking legal action against retired Navy Seal who wrote book about raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed

refusetolose

some extracts from the book here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh8mVsUY7ZE

Donnielighto

donalg1 wrote: »

Really is that so, well "buddy", that was used in response to Lethal Lady who first used the word, so I think you are the one again misreading things, maybe you need to go and have a read of it and respond to her and not me. Ok "buddy". :rolleyes: My whole point was it was a stupid word to use, which you missed that spectacularly too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80495486&postcount=137

those quotation marks, ta siad ag cur isteach orm

Riddle101

end of the road wrote: »

i've all ready grown up, you need to stop being gullible

You know, it really annoys me when people like you call people gullible when they don't agree with your opinions or theories. It's like the typical go to response or something. Honestly you think you're anymore right, that you have a better grasp of what's going on around the world, then others. Fact of the matter is, it's more plausible to believe that the moon landing or 9/11 was real, over some theory a few people made about the moon landing being fake or that 9/11 was done by the American government because there is evidence that refutes them, while theories are mere speculation with no real evidence to back them up.

And before you start calling me gullible. I'm not someone who believes everything I read in the news, because i'm well aware that a lot of new sites are biased and can't be trusted, like Sky News of Fox News. I look at things from a fair and neutral perspective.

refusetolose wrote: »

The Pentagon considering taking legal action against retired Navy Seal who wrote book about raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed

Understandable really, he's a former Navy Seal who plans on revealing possibly confidential information. The Pentagon would no doubt want to stop to him as well. I'm just surprised that they're thinking of taking legal action against him, and not planning to arrest and imprison him. That type of thing could be seen as treason.

On a second note, the guy who wrote the book is getting a lot of negative criticism. People are calling him a traitor etc.

Thelonious

Riddle101 wrote: »

You know, it really annoys me when people like you call people gullible when they don't agree with your opinions or theories. It's like the typical go to response or something. Honestly you think you're anymore right, that you have a better grasp of what's going on around the world, then others. Fact of the matter is, it's more plausible to believe that the moon landing or 9/11 was real, over some theory a few people made about the moon landing being fake or that 9/11 was done by the American government because there is evidence that refutes them, while theories are mere speculation with no real evidence to back them up.

And before you start calling me gullible. I'm not someone who believes everything I read in the news, because i'm well aware that a lot of new sites are biased and can't be trusted, like Sky News of Fox News. I look at things from a fair and neutral perspective.

What exactly would you know about the evidence?

The fact is that the 9/11 Commission Report was an absolute farce and if you think sufficient evidence was provided to refute any possibility of conspiracy you're out of your mind.

How can you claim to assess things from a fair and neutral perspective without
A) any significant knowledge of the facts or
any inclination to seek out evidence that might just contradict the official version of events. Even if it is only to put your mind at ease.



http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

That's a link to an article that explains very clearly how extraordinarily high concentrations of explosive material was found in dust that settled out of the skyscraper rubble on 9/11.

I'm sure you never heard of this study though. Believe it or not, the people that worked on this study were basically ostracized from the academic institutions they were at for publishing this. The science is absolutely sound though.

It's unfortunate but anybody who even expresses dissatisfaction with the **** sandwich official account of what happened is shouted down and humiliated by the ignorant masses who have no depth of knowledge of 9/11. Yet the same ignoramuses who shout people down seemingly have an unassailable point of view. It's easy to be smug when you're on the winning team.

Obviously you're at a disadvantage because you probably never heard of a scanning electron microscope or any x ray analytical techniques. I am familiar with these techniques and I've used them personally.

It's no wonder so few people openly talk about doubts they might have on this topic when they get labelled as nutters for even entertaining such notions. Personally, I don't mind discussing this on an internet forum under a semi anonymous username but I don't think it would be worth discussing it openly with people I actually know.

--Kaiser--

Thelonious wrote: »

What exactly would you know about the evidence?

The fact is that the 9/11 Commission Report was an absolute farce and if you think sufficient evidence was provided to refute any possibility of conspiracy you're out of your mind.

How can you claim to assess things from a fair and neutral perspective without
A) any significant knowledge of the facts or
any inclination to seek out evidence that might just contradict the official version of events. Even if it is only to put your mind at ease.



http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

That's a link to an article that explains very clearly how extraordinarily high concentrations of explosive material was found in dust that settled out of the skyscraper rubble on 9/11.

I'm sure you never heard of this study though. Believe it or not, the people that worked on this study were basically ostracized from the academic institutions they were at for publishing this. The science is absolutely sound though.

It's unfortunate but anybody who even expresses dissatisfaction with the **** sandwich official account of what happened is shouted down and humiliated by the ignorant masses who have no depth of knowledge of 9/11. Yet the same ignoramuses who shout people down seemingly have an unassailable point of view. It's easy to be smug when you're on the winning team.

Obviously you're at a disadvantage because you probably never heard of a scanning electron microscope or any x ray analytical techniques. I am familiar with these techniques and I've used them personally.

It's no wonder so few people openly talk about doubts they might have on this topic when they get labelled as nutters for even entertaining such notions. Personally, I don't mind discussing this on an internet forum under a semi anonymous username but I don't think it would be worth discussing it openly with people I actually know.

Yawn.
Debunked.

I'm sure any and all stuff you can come up with has been comprehensively debunked. You think it was a controlled demolition, have you ever seen one? Becasue it looks nothing like what happnened to the WTCs. Controlled demoiltions are all from the bottom up. The WTCs collpased from the point that the planes crashed. Plus the amount of people it would take to rig 2 skyscrapers for demolition is about 100 - for two months. Obviously these were assassinated afterwards? And how do you rig explosives that don't detonate when a plane full of kerosene crashes into it.......it's a mind bogglingly stupid thoery when you look inot it.

Here's a video explaining what open-mindedness means, and what it doesn't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

(Hint: believing things for which there is no evidence is not being open-minded, it's almost the exact opposite)

Riddle101

Thelonious wrote: »

What exactly would you know about the evidence?

The fact is that the 9/11 Commission Report was an absolute farce and if you think sufficient evidence was provided to refute any possibility of conspiracy you're out of your mind.

How can you claim to assess things from a fair and neutral perspective without
A) any significant knowledge of the facts or
any inclination to seek out evidence that might just contradict the official version of events. Even if it is only to put your mind at ease.



http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

That's a link to an article that explains very clearly how extraordinarily high concentrations of explosive material was found in dust that settled out of the skyscraper rubble on 9/11.

I'm sure you never heard of this study though. Believe it or not, the people that worked on this study were basically ostracized from the academic institutions they were at for publishing this. The science is absolutely sound though.

It's unfortunate but anybody who even expresses dissatisfaction with the **** sandwich official account of what happened is shouted down and humiliated by the ignorant masses who have no depth of knowledge of 9/11. Yet the same ignoramuses who shout people down seemingly have an unassailable point of view. It's easy to be smug when you're on the winning team.

It's no wonder so few people openly talk about doubts they might have on this topic when they get labelled as nutters for even entertaining such notions. Personally, I don't mind discussing this on an internet forum under a semi anonymous username but I don't think it would be worth discussing it openly with people I actually know.

Anytime a historical event occurs. There are always people coming out with conspiracies. JFK, Moon Landings, 9/11. It's always the same. So it shouldn't be a surprise if people show skepticism towards a lot of these theories that come out. 9/11 is one of those events that gets a lot conspiracies. People don't seem to want to believe that maybe AL Queda did hijack a couple of planes and crash them into the twin towers and other target on orders from Bin Laden. Instead they have this weird theory that it was the US government itself that did it. Also you do realize that there were more planes hijacked not just the ones that hit the towers. The one that hit the Pentagon and the one that was foiled by the passengers. Would that be implying that the US government orchestrated all those hijackings as well. But that would mean the twin towers weren't the only targets in 9/11, which pretty much renders the theory that 9/11 was an inside job as far reaching, because there was no need for the US government to attack other targets. Just attacking the twin towers would because of the media outcry. It's more logical to believe Al Queda did it, because they have a purpose for all those targets. As already said, all conspiracies have been refuted and debunked.

Obviously you're at a disadvantage because you probably never heard of a scanning electron microscope or any x ray analytical techniques. I am familiar with these techniques and I've used them personally.

Oh so that makes you an expert, then eh? Where have i heard that before. Oh yeah nearly every argument i've had on this site. There are always posters claiming to have knowledge of a subject or be experts, and that makes them believe that they have the inside scoop on things. I don't know who you are, so for all I know you probably just tested some techniques and used an electron microscope once. Either way, it doesn't help your argument.

hawkelady

Firstly, I am not a CT nut , far from it actually but I'm sick of both "sides" bickering at one another. I'd take everything with a pinch of salt especially when it comes to what the USA tell you.
It more than likely was BL who masterminded 9/11 but just google "operation northwoods or operation mongoose" and it will open your eyes as to what the yanks will do if they want too !

telecaster

The world's most advanced military gets it spectacularly wrong again.

Absolute fckwits

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/03/world/meast/yemen-drone-strike/index.html

When do we get to see the documentary on this episode?

wes

telecaster wrote: »

The world's most advanced military gets it spectacularly wrong again.

Absolute fckwits

Its much worse than that.

They redefined a combatant to be any male of military age, a while ago. So them killing civilians is a lot more common, as if there male and over a certain, there terrorists until proven otherwise:

“Militants”: media propaganda

So basically anytime the media reports militants have been killed, there is a pretty decent chance its bull****.

IM0

I love how a bunch of internet geniuses think they can outsmart a whole american military military machine and pick holes in their cover up story. :rolleyes:

ya'll are funny ya hear!

Run_to_da_hills

Did Obama Really Kill Osama?

Did he have any legal or ethical basis to assassinate Osama bin Laden?
Or is Obama just okay being a cold-blooded murderer?

Interesting article with some points worth taking into consideration on this totally fabricated event.

It dose mention the fact that this whole event took place just four days after Obama's long birth certificate was quizzed, so it looks kind of obvious that this incident was all carefully manipulated to detract attention away from the subject.


http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=579

Cheeky_gal

Best documentary I've ever seen. Was glued to the tv. Cant understand why they dumped his body in the ocean though. I know they said they didn't want a grave where people could visit as he didn't deserve one but still, dumped him in the ocean? That part was the only bizarre bit I thought. The rest was amazing. I'd gladly buy tickets to watch that in the cinema

Riddle101

Cold blooded murder? People think Bin Laden is a saint apparently. He got what he had coming.

IM0

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Best documentary I've ever seen. Was glued to the tv. Cant understand why they dumped his body in the ocean though. I know they said they didn't want a grave where people could visit as he didn't deserve one but still, dumped him in the ocean? That part was the only bizarre bit I thought. The rest was amazing. I'd gladly buy tickets to watch that in the cinema

careful there now you will have a whole pile of CT's springing into action claiming they cremated him and the whole point of the recent mission to mars was to deposit his ashes where no one could get near them to worship!





actually Ive almost convinced myself :eek:

*leaves to write new thread in CT*

Run_to_da_hills

Riddle101 wrote: »

Cold blooded murder? People think Bin Laden is a saint apparently. He got what he deserved.

Like what?

He obviously did not carry out 9/11 :rolleyes:

Riddle101

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Like what?

He obviously did not carry out 9/11 :rolleyes:

Please just stop.

mcpaddington

Osama Bin Laden, world's best hide and seek player from 2001-2011.

Cheeky_gal

Where do people think he actually is?

SamHarris

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did he have any legal or ethical basis to assassinate Osama bin Laden?

Yes.

It would be pretty damn hard to argue that ethically a nation cannot kill a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of its citizens, over dozens of events, over decades, especially considering the man was still actively trying to carry out more.

If he wanted a trial he had a decade to hand himself in.

Why are you not upset about people being killed every day all over the world when effecting arrest, or in warzones? Somehow the man's name being known just made it an awful thing for him to be killed. The childishness that people try and inject into "morality" is laughable to anyone aware of how complex it can be.

Its immoral if your extremly religious, in which case it was up to America to turn the other cheek, and perhaps get slapped again, and for god to judge OBL. If you are not religious, or have doubts, the morality of killing someone hellbent on killing, his words, "millions" of americans is clear.

I notice few people bother bringing up the Algerian killed by French police as something "immoral". Its blatantly clear it has everything to do with the US succesfully killing the man responsible for 9 11, the poltics was much easier for people when the war on terror was just a complete failure.

I refuse to believe the same people that are always axe grinding with regard to the US suddenly become pacifists when dealing with this issue. Its pathetically transparent, at least be honeset about why something pisses you off.

SamHarris

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I never watched such garbage in my life. The thing about measuring Bin Laden by his shadow was just ridiculous. Also the bit thrown in about murdering three thousand innocent people and this by a country whose past leaders have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and everywhere else they could get away with it or should that not be mentioned.

You must be furious when Germans, Russians or Japanese people ever complain about their citizens being murdered, given their far worse actions during the war?

In fact, given the history of the last 60 years is there any group of people you think have the right not to be murdered? :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes.

It would be pretty damn hard to argue that ethically a nation cannot kill a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of its citizens, over dozens of events, over decades, especially considering the man was still actively trying to carry out more.

Thats only if he was even responsible for any of these deaths in the first place.

Its also worth noticing that after each Bin Laden "event" the noose gets tighter and tighter on civil liberties, First it was the Patriot act, then microchipped embedded passports, XRay scanners, etc.

Now that Bin Laden is "dead" and the Islamic Terrorist mantra is finally wearing itself out, the next up and coming breed of domestic terrorist will not be wearing a turban but will be America's own Army Veterans. Watch this space.

WumBuster

FFS, I cant believe the hypocrisy of it all watching that program. It was nothing better than a glorified gangland hit. he was unarmed when they shot him, he should have been captured and brought before an international court to face trial & dealt appropriate punishment. So much for the greatest democracy on the planet,its only slogan they use when it suits them so it seems.

af_thefragile

Anyone with a good level of intelligence can clearly figure out the whole thing was nothing but a massive publicity stunt to boost back up Obama's all time low ratings in time for the elections.

They loved making a massive spectacle of the capture and death of Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi but they once showed Bin Laden's dead body and WTF was that burial at sea about?! Couldn't they find a better excuse to get rid of a fake body?!

Its funny how most people will believe whatever **** America says. Its not the first time America has lied about something, yet everyone blindly believes it because "why would they lie to us?!", well why wouldn't they?! Especially the American government which has a habit of lying to its people.

There is no evidence for Al-Qaeda either. All there is evidence for are the resistence groups in Afghanistan who are fighting off the American soldiers who are there. Which one could argue they have the right to as America has invaded their countries. But apart from that all evidence from Al-Qaeda comes from US intelligence and "why would they lie to us?!"...

Its all nothing else put about power, money and oil. Obama was losing support and popularity faster than a meteorite falling through the atmosphere. He had to do something big to keep his and democratic support in the majority and what better way than to cook up some hollywood esque action film of killing "America's greratest enemy".
Then USA has many strategic interests in the Afghanistan area and there's no better reason to remain there than by maintaining a constant threat of the "evil Al-Qaeda" which can attack USA anytime because "they hate our freedom" and thus they need to be fought and do away with till every last one of them is gone...

Only gullible Americans can fall for **** like that but seems like the whole world finds comfort in believing whatever USA says is right.

IM0

af_thefragile wrote: »

Anyone with a good level of intelligence can clearly figure out the whole thing was nothing but a massive publicity stunt to boost back up Obama's all time low ratings in time for the elections.

They loved making a massive spectacle of the capture and death of Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi but they once showed Bin Laden's dead body and WTF was that burial at sea about?! Couldn't they find a better excuse to get rid of a fake body?!

Its funny how most people will believe whatever **** America says. Its not the first time America has lied about something, yet everyone blindly believes it because "why would they lie to us?!", well why wouldn't they?! Especially the American government which has a habit of lying to its people.

There is no evidence for Al-Qaeda either. All there is evidence for are the resistence groups in Afghanistan who are fighting off the American soldiers who are there. Which one could argue they have the right to as America has invaded their countries. But apart from that all evidence from Al-Qaeda comes from US intelligence and "why would they lie to us?!"...

Its all nothing else put about power, money and oil. Obama was losing support and popularity faster than a meteorite falling through the atmosphere. He had to do something big to keep his and democratic support in the majority and what better way than to cook up some hollywood esque action film of killing "America's greratest enemy".
Then USA has many strategic interests in the Afghanistan area and there's no better reason to remain there than by maintaining a constant threat of the "evil Al-Qaeda" which can attack USA anytime because "they hate our freedom" and thus they need to be fought and do away with till every last one of them is gone...

Only gullible Americans can fall for **** like that but seems like the whole world finds comfort in believing whatever USA says is right.

and only paranoid delusional and probably mentally ill conspiracy theorists can come up with stuff like that
touche!

IM0

also there was a MUCH better programme detailing all this and more on BBC last year [maybe earlier this year?] cant remember the name and no sign of anything like it on iplayer either

Tcddentistry

The real reason exposed..

B.A._Baracus

I personally call bullshit on the whole Bin laden killing. We're not getting the full story. Its the US government after all & the timing was perfect as it was at the time of Ombama and his birth cert.

Run_to_da_hills

IM0 wrote: »

I love how a bunch of internet geniuses think they can outsmart a whole american military military machine and pick holes in their cover up story. :rolleyes:

ya'll are funny ya hear!

American military geniuses that couldn't even produce the key evidence of the "murder" scene like showing live footage and decent images of the body of the key suspect. LOL.

The method of disposing the body and excuses for not displaying anything was also so fake.

Seal Team 6 gets wiped out in a helicopter crash only weeks after the raid,

D'oh, they may have known too much. :rolleyes:

This whole "story" has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

B.A._Baracus

Totally forgot about members of the Seal team being killed. Alot of coincidences and fishy stories presented as fact here.

I also remember hearing about Bin Laden and his communication to the media in recent years. Towards the last video tapes his beard was dyed. Even tho it was previously grey and its said to be blasphemous to dye your beard in his religion. But, of course, unless in times of war. Which he may well of felt.

But the odd thing was he switched to audio tapes. After years and years of video communication he switced to audio.

Ha, I sound like a conspiracy nut dont I? :pac:
Its just I dont know. Something just doesnt feel right

nacho libre

Clareman wrote: »

Finally, I can't believe the naievity of the compound that Bin Laden was in, fair enough if you want to be at the top of the stairs, put some protection in place or have people fighting/shooting etc., also, don't have all this invaluable data lying around that can be just carried out in bin bags, imvho a lot more happened in the downing of the helicopter rather than just "it got caught in a down draft", I wouldn't be surprised if it was taken down while they were taking out any defences that were put in place.
.

if you're trying to "hide in plain sight", it's best not to draw attention to yourself by having heavily armed people protecting you. The funny thing is by the Bin Laden compound shunning modern communication they actually drew attention to themselves. Bin Laden probably had the data there because he became complacent, due to the fact he had evaded capture for so long due to likely protection from sections of Pakistani intellgience.
While I believe Osama is dead, I agree that we are not being told the full story about his death in that raid, and also about the death of Seal Team Six members a few weeks later by Taliban insurgents due to a "lucky shot" at a helicopter from a shoulder-fired missile. It wouldn't surprise me if that incident was in fact payback from sections of the ISI who were pissed off at America going behind their backs to get Bin Laden. Would it be, taking the long term view, in the interest of both countries to cover up such an occurence? I think so.

brummytom

Please make it stop.

Riddle101

af_thefragile wrote: »

Anyone with a good level of intelligence can clearly figure out the whole thing was nothing but a massive publicity stunt to boost back up Obama's all time low ratings in time for the elections.

If it was a publicity stunt to boost Obama's rating for the elections, then why did they do it at that time specifically? Why do it nearly two years before the elections start? when they could have done it closer to the elections. Unless of course, time was of the essence and it wasn't just a publicity stunt like you say, but an actual operation carried out to take the most wanted man in America down.

They loved making a massive spectacle of the capture and death of Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi but they once showed Bin Laden's dead body and WTF was that burial at sea about?! Couldn't they find a better excuse to get rid of a fake body?

!

Unless it wasn't fake. For it to be fake, would imply Bin Laden was already dead and the body was taken care of long ago, and if he's dead then Seal Team 6 assaulted a compound and breached international protocol for nothing.

As for the burial at sea. Maybe there was no place for him to be buried. I don't think Pakistan or Afghanistan would want Bin Laden buried in their countries, and America would never agree to burying a man like that. His grave would be desecrated and destroyed. Burial at sea was the best option, nobody owns the sea.

There is no evidence for Al-Qaeda either. All there is evidence for are the resistence groups in Afghanistan who are fighting off the American soldiers who are there. Which one could argue they have the right to as America has invaded their countries. But apart from that all evidence from Al-Qaeda comes from US intelligence and "why would they lie to us?!"...

A resistance group, doesn't kidnap people, some of which are their own and behead them. A resistance group doesn't blow up civilian targets. A resistance group fights for a country. These people are not a resistance group, they are terrorists. I don't care if you think these's no such thing as Al Queda, but please don't try to justify them by calling them a resistance group.

Its all nothing else put about power, money and oil. Obama was losing support and popularity faster than a meteorite falling through the atmosphere. He had to do something big to keep his and democratic support in the majority and what better way than to cook up some hollywood esque action film of killing "America's greratest enemy".
Then USA has many strategic interests in the Afghanistan area and there's no better reason to remain there than by maintaining a constant threat of the "evil Al-Qaeda" which can attack USA anytime because "they hate our freedom" and thus they need to be fought and do away with till every last one of them is gone...

I will refer to each of the bolded points in numbers.
1.There's no oil in Afghanistan. They get their oil from neighbors, so that can't be why they're in Afghanistan. There's no money to be made either, if anything the war in Afghanistan has caused them more money then made, and finally what power are we talking about here?

2. How did Obama cook this up though? I mean obviously if Obama only did this to get support back, then that means that the people who are in on it would know it's fake as well. That means that Seal Team 6 didn't kill Bin Laden, and high ranking officials would know it a hoax as well.

3. At the moment America are more focused on providing security and act as an advisory role. So it's not so much to destroy Al Queda till every last one is gone. But more to provide support, and now America is in a transition period of giving control over the the Afghan army and police.

Only gullible Americans can fall for **** like that but seems like the whole world finds comfort in believing whatever USA says is right.

You're in a minority of people who believe this is all a hoax. No different to the people who believed the guy in the Grassy Knoll theory, or the Moon Landing was fake. I don't know, maybe some people just love a good conspiracy theory, because they love thinking outside the box. But as far as people finding comfort in whatever the USA says. They have no reason not to believe it's true. Afterall, if somebody told you an IRA leader was killed in a police raid, would you believe that it was a hoax as well? I mean we'd have no reason to believe it was fake, but if someone said it was all just a hoax for a group of police men to get their names in the newspaper, well you can imagine how skeptical some people would be.

af_thefragile

^most of what you hear in the news is propaganda bull ****.
The US government is losing money but the powerful lobying arms manufacturers are making more money than ever through these wars.
Afghanistan is strategically important because of its proximity to Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan. No oil in Afghanistan but lots of oil and gas pipelines coming from Kazakistan and other countries go through Afghanistan.

You are very gullible if you vontinue believing what the US/western media feeds you. There's a lot more going on than just "securing our borders".

--Kaiser--

af_thefragile wrote: »

^most of what you hear in the news is propaganda bull ****.
The US government is losing money but the powerful lobying arms manufacturers are making more money than ever through these wars.
Afghanistan is strategically important because of its proximity to Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan. No oil in Afghanistan but lots of oil and gas pipelines coming from Kazakistan and other countries go through Afghanistan.

You are very gullible if you vontinue believing what the US/western media feeds you. There's a lot more going on than just "securing our borders".

What reliable source do you get your information from then? Conspiracy Theory forums? LOL

Happyman42

af_thefragile wrote: »

^most of what you hear in the news is propaganda bull ****.
The US government is losing money but the powerful lobying arms manufacturers are making more money than ever through these wars.
Afghanistan is strategically important because of its proximity to Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan. No oil in Afghanistan but lots of oil and gas pipelines coming from Kazakistan and other countries go through Afghanistan.

You are very gullible if you vontinue believing what the US/western media feeds you. There's a lot more going on than just "securing our borders".

It amazing how embedded all of the pro US stuff is when you open your eyes. Even the BBC is pumping out the propaganda.
The 'Rodent or whatever' Hammond was on the other night being trained on a US tank, firing scary shells into people carriers and civilian cars in desert conditions. It was evident what 'theatre of war' was being constantly referred to and glorified. Then at the end he thanked the troops for everything they had done and would do for 'us all'. Feck off Hammond, speak for yourself!